rspec users - Jan 2010 - nested steps

Question.
Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like

context "abc"
  it ''should do y'' do
  end
end

It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like

context "abc"
  it ''should do y'' do

    it ''should also be able to do x''
    end

  end
end

Thoughts?
-r

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:40 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Question.
> Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it ''should do y'' do
>  end
> end
>
> It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it ''should do y'' do
>
>    it ''should also be able to do x''
>    end
>
>  end
> end
>
> Thoughts?
> -r
>
Why would that be more convenient? Can you give a more concrete example
(with some sample code)?

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100112/2f0cdeb5/attachment.html>

On 12 Jan 2010, at 22:40, rogerdpack wrote:
> Question.
> Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it ''should do y'' do
>  end
> end
>
> It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it ''should do y'' do
>
>    it ''should also be able to do x''
>    end
>
>  end
You do realise you can already nest contexts don''t you? That makes  
much more sense to me than what you''ve suggested.
> end
>
> Thoughts?
> -r
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184

>
> You do realise you can already nest contexts don''t you? That makes
?
> much more sense to me than what you''ve suggested.
>
Hi Roger,

Here''s an example of nesting contexts that Matt is talking about:

http://gist.github.com/275798

Peace,
Phillip

> You do realise you can already nest contexts don''t you? That makes
?
> much more sense to me than what you''ve suggested.
Ahh that is what I lacked.

That should suffice.
Thanks!
-r